Who is the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction?

Who is the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC act? If the public servant is retired from the service the competent authority is bound to grant the sanction for the prosecution. In this respect please clarify who is the competent to grant sanction. I have retired from the service in […]

Who is the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC act? If the public servant is retired from the service the competent authority is bound to grant the sanction for the prosecution. In this respect please clarify who is the competent to grant sanction. I have retired from the service in 2015 and the anti-corruption court is taking cognisance in my case.

The prosecution did not present the sanction order. When my advocate objected the court said that sanction is not necessary. I am very afraid that the court is working under the pressure of the prosecution. Kindly save my life otherwise the court may convict me in that false case.

Asked from: Uttar Pradesh

Government is the sanctioning authority in respect of the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. You are an employee of the state government. Therefore, the Governor is the sanctioning authority in your case. The sanction must be valid otherwise the High Court may quash the proceeding.

You are entitled to claim sanction for prosecution if your service is subject to termination by the order of the government. If an officer has power to terminate you in disciplinary proceeding then sanction is not required. 

Sanction for prosecution is necessary if the accused is in service at the time of taking cognisance. After the retirement of a government servant the prosecution sanction is not required. Sanction is mandatory for taking cognisance. It does not require for the investigation and after retirement of the accused.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Husband is demanding DNA test to check the paternity of our son in divorce case

The law does not permit a husband to compel his wife or child to undergo a DNA test merely on the basis of suspicion. In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Supreme Court held that a blood or DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course. Before seeking such a direction, the husband must establish a strong prima facie case by proving that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.